Gokal Chand Mital, C. J.

( 1 ) THE Sales Tax Officer created a demand of Rs37,66,820. 00 against the petitioner vide order dated 20th March, 1991. Against this order,the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Sales Tax and filed an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax vide order dated 9th September, 1991 directed the petitioner to deposit the entire levied amount and the compliance report was to be submitted before 10th October, 1991. Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount, the appeal was dismissed in limine on 10th October, 1991.

( 2 ) AGAINST the aforesaid order, the petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax, Delhi and along with the appeal filed an application for dispensing the pre-deposit. The appeal and the application for dispensing with the pre-deposit have been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 8th October, 1992.

( 3 ) STILL feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner company was declared a sick unit by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction by order dated 5th December, 1989 and thus the petitioner company was not obliged to deposit the amount as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal inasmuch as no recovery of tax could be made from the-petitioner.

( 5 ) ON a consideration of the matter, on peculiar facts of this case, we are unable to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed that it is the duty of the dealer to collect sales tax and if sale is to bemade to a registered dealer, in that case, the seller need not collect the tax, provided the purchasing dealer gives declaration in the prescribed ST form in which event the liability to pay the tax passes on to the purchasing dealer.

( 7 ) IN this case, it is the petitioner sown case, which will be found from the following paragraphs of the writ petition that he collected the tax at the rate of 7% from the purchasing dealer, since the purchasing dealer did not furnish the declarations in form ST-1 or ST-35. A reading of para (f), reproduced hereinafter, which is part of the writ petition, shows that the collection of tax by the petitioner from the purchasing dealer was termed deposit of an amount equivalent to tax was obtained by the petitioner until the declaration forms were supplied by the purchasing dealer and on supplying the declaration forms, the deposit was to be refunded to the purchasing dealer.

( 8 ) BEFORE us, counsel for the petitioner had to admit that till today, the purchasing dealer did not furnish the declaration forms in ST-lor ST-35tof he petitioner and there by the petitioner is not under an obligation to refund the amount of tax collected by it. Keeping the aforesaid facts in view, it is clear that the petitioner collected the amount of sales tax and that is in trust with it for onward transmission to the Sales Tax Department. It is also admitted that in law, until declaration forms in ST-1 or ST-35 are produced, the liability to pay sales tax is on the seller. The petitioner being the seller, having recovered the sales tax from the purchasing dealer, the amount of sales tax was under trust with it and had to be passed Jan to the Sales Tax Department. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the purchasing dealer has furnished ST-I or ST-35 declarations to it, the petitioner will have to refund the so-called deposit amount of sales tax to the purchasing dealer. In any event, it cannot escape the liability to pay the amount of trust money lying with it whether to the Sales Tax Department or to the purchasing dealer.

( 9 ) AS already noticed, since the declaration forms have not been furnished the liability to pay tax would be that of the petitioner.

( 10 ) BEFORE considering the other arguments, we may reproduce some of the paragrap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document